Counts v. State
2012 WY 70
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Counts was convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping, and later labeled an habitual criminal for life imprisonment under Wyoming law.
- BP, Counts' girlfriend, testified to Counts breaking in, chasing her, forcing her back inside, dragging her to a basement room, and assaulting her.
- Knife presence was established with a knife found on Counts and another knife under a mattress; BP later gave inconsistent statements to authorities.
- Counts wrote letters to BP while incarcerated; the State sought to introduce excerpts with redactions to address concerns of completeness and potential prejudice.
- The district court allowed redacted excerpts and substituted vague references to communications with prosecutors and investigators to avoid calling those officials as witnesses.
- Counts challenged evidentiary rulings, cross-examination limits, the bill of particulars, jury instructions, and the sufficiency/consistency of the verdict; the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of redacted letters | Counts claims complete letters should be admitted; redactions violate Rule 106. | State's redacted excerpts clarify and contextualize without misleading; essential to prevent prejudice. | District court did not abuse discretion; redactions were consistent with completeness and harmless. |
| Cross-examination about BP's law-enforcement employment | Employment would show bias and affect credibility; exclusion infringes confrontation rights. | No pending charges; cross-exam about bias should be limited; harmless error analysis applies. | District court erred in excluding employment evidence; error deemed harmless beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Bill of particulars | State should specify locations and factual theories behind confinement, removal, and terrorization. | Bill of particulars is not a vehicle for evidentiary detail or trial strategies; charging documents suffice. | No reversible error; charging documents adequately identified the offenses and legal theories. |
| Jury instructions | Instructions failed to define key terms (removed, vicinity, confined, terrorize). | Common ordinary meanings apply; definitions were unnecessary. | No plain error; terms have ordinary meanings and were properly understood by the jury. |
| Inconsistent verdict and sufficiency of evidence | Conviction for aggravated burglary while acquitting aggravated assault shows inconsistency; challenge sufficiency for kidnapping and burglary. | Inconsistent verdicts are permissible; evidence supports both convictions; standards of review apply. | No reversible error; evidence sufficient to support kidnapping and burglary convictions; verdict not inherently inconsistent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2011 WY 126 (Wy. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; prejudice required for reversal)
- Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 116 (Wy. 2006) (deference to trial court evidentiary rulings)
- Schmid v. Schmid, 2007 WY 148 (Wy. 2007) (harmless error standard for evidentiary issues)
- Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716 (10th Cir. 2010) (rule of completeness framework; relevance and context considerations)
- Hannon v. State, 2011 WY 113 (Wy. 2011) (confrontation rights and cross-examination breadth; harmless error analysis)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1988) (harmless error and factors for evaluating cross-examination impact)
- Keene v. State, 812 P.2d 147 (Wy. 1991) (definition of 'removal' and confinement and statutory interpretation)
- Alcalde v. State, 2003 WY 99 (Wy. 2003) (ordinary meaning of 'vicinity' and 'confined' in kidnapping statute)
- Vernier v. State, 909 P.2d 1344 (Wy. 1996) (bill of particulars guidance; general vs. evidentiary detail)